atheism and theism both based on faith?

[ranchodeluxe]

yes you may be surprised to find that according to wiki both atheism and theism are both faith based because they both require faith that there is or is not a god whereas agnosticism does not require faith that there is or is not a god. i tend to agree with wiki because the existence of a god will never be proven or disproven although i do tend to lean more towards atheism in my personal belief i am still agnostic. even richard dawkins has stated in interviews that he is not 100% sure that a god does not exist but the existence of a god is highly unlikely. i agree with dawkins statement here because one can never be too sure of themselves when discussing the unknown. i find both atheism and theism to be untenable positions whereas agnosticism is not untenable but rather a neutral position. :|

 

[Noth]

It's actually simpler than that.

You are an atheist when you do not believe in the existence of (a) god(s). This is not a belief, but a lack of belief.

Agnosticism is the stance you take towards knowledge and you'll find that most atheists on this board consider themselves agnostic as well as atheist, as they are not mutually exclusive viewpoints.

All the baggage that comes after that can be lumped into things like 'scepticism, humanism, secularism' etc. While it is true that a conscientious atheist often shows these features and it colours their person, it intrinsically doesn't say anything about their atheism itself. This remains what it has always been: not believing there is a god.

 

[Squawk]

If you wish to define atheism as certainty that no god exists then you are correct. But then I'm not an atheist. Neither is Dawkins. But that isn't how I define atheist, so it's irrelevant.

Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgment that one cannot have knowledge on such a position. Thus, my position, most accurately stated, is that I am an agnostic atheist.

I have no belief in a deity, but I don't assert that no deity exists.

Faith. Meh, worthless concept, one I don't suffer from.

##edit. Oh, and it doesn't suprise me in the slightest that wiki fucks up. Wiki, much like a dictionary, is pretty worthless for definitions where nuance is important.

 

[australopithecus]

yes you may be surprised to find that according to wiki both atheism and theism are both faith based because they both require faith that there is or is not a god whereas agnosticism does not require faith that there is or is not a god. i tend to agree with wiki because the existence of a god will never be proven or disproven although i do tend to lean more towards atheism in my personal belief i am still agnostic. even richard dawkins has stated in interviews that he is not 100% sure that a god does not exist but the existence of a god is highly unlikely. i agree with dawkins statement here because one can never be too sure of themselves when discussing the unknown. i find both atheism and theism to be untenable positions wheres agnosticism is not untenable but rather a neutral position. :|

Agnosticism isn't a position, it's a qualifier. It's like saying "I'm a blue". A blue what? You can't be an agnostic anymore than you can be a blue. If you aren't a theist you're an atheist, it's that simple.

Anyhoo, to quote wiki:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Selective reading does you no good, atheism is the general position of a lack of belief in gods. You can either believe there are no gods which is faith based, or you can simply disbelieve there are gods which isn't faith based.

 

[Squawk]

Selective reading does you no good, atheism is the general position of a lack of belief in gods. You can either believe there are no gods which is faith based, or you can simply disbelieve there are gods which isn't faith based.

I'd go further and suggest that while it might be a faith position to state definitively there are no gods, it's a hell of a lot less faith than stating that there are and listing characteristics. There are degress of wrongness.

 

[Guardian Angel]

Is it a faith position to believe that there are definitely no gods, even if you don't say so?

 

[Squawk]

Is it a faith position to believe that there are definitely no gods, even if you don't say so?

Yes, why would saying it make a difference?

 

[Guardian Angel]

Is it a faith position to believe that there are definitely no gods, even if you don't say so?

Yes, why would saying it make a difference?

So would you say that actually believing it, but choosing to state instead "I think there are probably no gods" is dishonesty?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Just to extend the thought of australopithecus. I would state that I lack faith in the supernatural. Or specifically I the faith that is needed to believe what is being discussed in this thread.

I use this example:

I would need some sort of faith that a person would not screw me over in a business dealing in order to reasonably get into some sort of deal. As that business dealing unfolds I would argue that the faith becomes less as evidence is gathered that the person would not screw me over. If the person does screw me over I lose faith in that person based on the evidence collected.

I understand that different definitions of the word faith are being used.

 

[Squawk]

Could be dishonesty, could simply be a mistake, could be any number of things.

 

[Guardian Angel]

Could be dishonesty, could simply be a mistake, could be any number of things.

If the person was arguing from a standpoint of avoiding being cornered at all costs, would it be dishonesty then?

 

[kenandkids]

I sincerely hope that you do not walk around daily, expending "faith" that Santa Clause doesn't exist. Instead, I hope that you are like most people and simply know that the likelihood is so minimal as to not require faith.

 

[Squawk]

Could be dishonesty, could simply be a mistake, could be any number of things.

If the person was arguing from a standpoint of avoiding being cornered at all costs, would it be dishonesty then?

Not really, for the reasons given by Kenan above. By strict definition I suppose yes, but it'd be a pretty silly thing to nitpick about.

 

[Guardian Angel]

So it's dishonest, but not something to talk about ?

 

[Squawk]

So it's dishonest, but not something to talk about ?

In the same way that saying "Santa doesn't exist" is faith based, so claiming instead no belief in santaclaus.

 

[Guardian Angel]

So it's dishonest, but not something to talk about ?

In the same way that saying "Santa doesn't exist" is faith based, so claiming instead no belief in santaclaus.

What other things are dishonest, but you think they shouldn't be mentioned?

 

[australopithecus]

Do you actually have an opinion or do you just ask questions?

 

[kenandkids]

Do you actually have an opinion or do you just ask questions?

loves the feel of a leash in the hand, he does...

 

[Guardian Angel]

Do you actually have an opinion or do you just ask questions?

I'm not here to express opinions. I'm here to ask questions for my essay.

 

[kenandkids]

Do you actually have an opinion or do you just ask questions?

I'm not here to express opinions. I'm here to ask questions for my essay.

This again? And here I thought you'd joined a discussion group...